It all depends on what you think the binding of Satan entails. Obviously, Amils and Premils disagree on that. While what you said here about Satan is true, what is said in scriptures like these about him is also true:
Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
1 John 3:8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.
Why is it that Premils are quick to point out the influence that Satan does have in NT times, but never say anything about the power that was taken away from him during these times, as referenced in the scriptures I showed above?
Because what you say above implies that Christ's destruction of the power of Satan will only last a thousand years (or x thousand years) but the devil will be able at the close of the thousand years (or x thousand years) to regain the power over death that Christ's death and resurrection caused him to lose.
The devil's work was the death that came to all men through Adam's fall. Just because that in turn came about through the devil's deception does not mean that the devil was cast into the lake of fire when Christ died and rose again, nor does it mean that his permission to deceive the nations was taken away by God at that point.
Christ's destruction of the devil's power will last forever and ever, not only for a millennium and then be reversed for a brief period at the close of that same millennium.
To deduce that the destruction of the devil's works i.e his power over death = God taking away his ability to deceive the nations or binding him in that way, is a logical fallacy, in my opinion.
Help me understand what you were trying to say here. You said you believe it's symbolic language being used in Revelation 19 (and Ezekiel 39 as well?), but you somehow conclude that it can't be the same as what is described in Revelation 20. Why not? Since the cause of the destruction is only described symbolically in Revelation 19 while being described literally in Revelation 20, why can't they be speaking of the same event? The literal method of destruction is not given in Revelation 19 since it is only described symbolically there, so why can't the literal method of destruction be by fire in Revelation 19?
There are a few things that should be taken note of as far as the differences between Revelation 19 and 20 are concerned.
The first being that it's not only Satan's binding being linked to the mention of a thousand years. It's also those who had been seen by John living and reigning with Christ a thousand years - the souls of those who had (already) been beheaded .. and the fact that IF the word zao (alive) used in Revelation 20:4 does not refer to people living in their bodies, then it's the only verse in the entire New Testament where that word is used:
God created a body for Adam. He isn't just a soul.
The biblical concept of eternal life is inextricably intertwined with being alive in a body. Below is a list of the New Testament scriptures using the Greek word záō (alive). Unless Revelation 20:4 is the only exception, not one of them are in reference to someone who has died / fallen asleep / is not alive, i.e not living in his body. Not one:
|| Matthew 16:16; Matthew 22:32; Matthew 26:63; Matthew 27:63; Mark 5:23; Mark 12:27; Mark 16:11; Luke 2:36; Luke 4:4; Luke 10:28; Luke 15:13; Luke 20:38; Luke 24:5; Luke 24:23; John 4:10; John 4:11; John 4:50; John 4:51; John 4:53; John 5:25; John 6:51; John 6:57; John 6:58; John 6:69; John 7:38; John 11:25; John 11:26; John 14:19; Acts 1:3; Acts 7:38; Acts 9:41; Acts 10:42; Acts 14:15; Acts 17:28; Acts 20:12; Acts 22:22; Acts 25:19; Acts 25:24; Acts 26:5; Acts 28:4; Romans 1:17; Romans 6:2; Romans 6:10; Romans 6:11; Romans 6:13; Romans 7:1; Romans 7:2; Romans 7:3; Romans 7:9; Romans 8:12; Romans 8:13; Romans 9:26; Romans 10:5; Romans 12:1; Romans 14:7; Romans 14:8; Romans 14:9; Romans 14:11; 1 Corinthians 7:39; 1 Corinthians 9:14; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 3:3; 2 Corinthians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 5:15; 2 Corinthians 6:9; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Galatians 2:14; Galatians 2:19; Galatians 2:20; Galatians 3:11; Galatians 3:12; Galatians 5:25; Philippians 1:21; Philippians 1:22; Colossians 2:20; Colossians 3:7; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 3:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; 1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Timothy 4:10; 1 Timothy 5:6; 1 Timothy 6:17; 2 Timothy 3:12; 2 Timothy 4:1; Titus 2:12; Hebrews 2:15; Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 4:12; Hebrews 7:8; Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:17; Hebrews 10:20; Hebrews 10:31; Hebrews 10:38; Hebrews 12:9; Hebrews 12:22; James 4:15; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 Peter 2:4; 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 4:5; 1 Peter 4:6; 1 John 4:9; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 2:8; Revelation 3:1; Revelation 4:9; Revelation 4:10; Revelation 5:14; Revelation 7:2; Revelation 7:17; Revelation 10:6; Revelation 13:14; Revelation 15:7; Revelation 16:3; Revelation 19:20 (cast alive into the lake of fire); Revelation 20:4. ||
Then there is the fact that these souls who had been beheaded for not worshiping the beast and are seen living (zao) is also linked in Revelation 20:5-6 to the anastasis (resurrection). Another interesting word, because unless Revelation 20:5-6 is the only exception, not once in the New Testament is the word anastais
not referring to the bodily resurrection:
Without fail, each and every time anástasis is used in the New Testament, it's referring to (the) bodily resurrection from the dead, which is an integral part of the gospel:-
|| Matthew 22:23, 28 & 30-31; Mark 12:18 & 23; Luke 2:34; Luke 14:14; Luke 20:27, 33, 35-36; John 5:29; John 11:24-25; Acts 1:22; Acts 2:31; Acts 4:2; Acts 4:33; Acts 17:18, 32; Acts 23:6, 8; Acts 24:15, 21; Acts 26:23; Romans 1:4; Romans 6:5; 1 Corinthians 15:12-13, 21, 42; Philippians 3:10; II Timothy 2:18; Hebrews 6:2; Hebrews 11:35; I Peter 1:3; I Peter 3:21; Revelation 20:5-6. ||
All of the following verses below use one or more of the following words, and all are speaking about the bodily resurrection from the dead:-
égersis; anístēmi; egeírō:
|| Matthew 9:25; Matthew 10:8; Matthew 11:5; Matthew 14:2; Matthew 17:9; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:23; Matthew 20:19; Matthew 26:32; Matthew 27:52-53 & 63-64; Matthew 28:6-7; Mark 6:14 & 16; Mark 12:26; Mark 14:28; Mark 16:6 & 14; Luke 7:14; Luke 7:22; Luke 8:54; Luke 9:7 & 22; Luke 14:13-14; Luke 20:37; Luke 24:6; Luke 24:34; John 2:19-21; John 5:21; John 5:28-29; John 6:39, 40 & 44; John 11:23-35; John 12:1, 9 & 17; John 21:14; Acts 1:22; Acts 2:24, 31-32; Acts 3:15 & 26; Acts 4:1-2, 10 & 33; Acts 5:30; Acts 10:40; Acts 13:30 & 33-37; Acts 17:18 & 31-32; Acts 23:6-8; Acts 24:15 & 21; Acts 26:8; Romans 1:4; Romans 4:23-25; Romans 6:4-5; Romans 6:9; Romans 7:4; Romans 8:11; Romans 8:34; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 1 Corinthians 15:4, 12-23, 35-36, 42-45, 50-57; 2 Corinthians 1:9; 2 Corinthians 4:14; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 2:5-6; Ephesians 5:14; Philippians 3:10-11; Colossians 2:12-13; Colossians 3:1 (Compare with Romans 6:5); 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16; 2 Timothy 2:8 & 18; Hebrews 6:1-2; Hebrews 11:35; 1 Peter 1:3-5; 1 Peter 1:21; 1 Peter 3:18 & 21; Revelation 20:5-6. ||
Unless Revelation 20:5-6 is the only exception, not one New Testament verse employing any of the above listed words associated with The Resurrection (ansastis) is
not talking about the bodily resurrection. Not one.
God created a body for Adam. He isn't just a soul. So the combination of the words zao (alive in a body) and anastasis (bodily resurrection from the dead) in Revelation 20:4-6 - the passage referring to those who had been beheaded for their witness
to Jesus and their refusal to worship the beast or his image, and the fact that they are said to reign with Christ a thousand years, can (in my opinion)
only be referring to a "spiritual" resurrection (at the time of the new birth of the Spirit) by
forcing that interpretation into the text of Revelation 20:4-6,
despite the actual biblical meanings of the words zao and anasatsis.
PS: I like you a lot, because you always force me to go do the above kind of research by the arguments you put forward. I don't get that kind of research from a book.
So
because Satan was completely defeated and his power over death and his works were
completely destroyed forever and ever and will not be reversed for Satan's "little season" before the return of Christ,
and because the New Testament talks about the activities of Satan throughout Revelation Chapters 12 and 13,
and because of all the verses telling of Satan being the god of this world and prince of the power of the air who has the ability to blind the minds of unbelievers is mentioned a number of times in the New Testament,
without a peep about him being bound in terms of his ability to deceive the nations being mentioned
until or before Revelation 20:1-3,
were it the case (as you imply) that Revelation 20 is a repeat of what is said about the end of the beast
before Revelation 20, then the first part of Revelation 20 does not fit with the latter part, and also, why the destruction of Satan in the lake of fire is not mentioned in Revelation 19 also beggars the question of why this would be so,
were Revelation 20 merely repeating and giving more information about the things that are written before it.
But it also depends on
when you believe the beast of Revelation 13 and the beast ascending from the abyss in Revelation 17 will appear - because this is the beast whose false prophet will cause all who will not worship said beast, to be killed.
I believe said beast will only ascend from the abyss at the close of the Age, i.e in the final 3.5 years or 42 months or 1,260 days, or whatever. If I'm not mistaken you have a very different view of the beast that will be destroyed along with the false prophet in the lake of fire.